If we consider the concepts of misinformation and disinformation in the context of an ordinary, traditional debate, both the for and against sides could, would and do, accuse the other of “misinformation”, distorting the facts or bias by ommission when all they’re doing is positing a different view, interpretation, angle or idea and highlighting the holes in the other sides case.Take the Voice debate for example. That’s all it came down to. Opinions and interpretations based on available information.
As Michael Shellenberger has pointed in an earlier post, the very word, “misinformation” is nothing but a soft, Orwellian device or type of euphemism for censorship.
That’s what we’re talking about in this entire phony debate. Censorship
Basically if the thought police and speech Nazis want to characterise an opinion as misinformation and not counter it with what they say is the correct information, but instead cancel you, it must mean you’re over the target and correct in your assessment.
Why wouldn’t they simply exercise their privelege of free speech and counter your information with their information?
It can only be because they’re lazy or their arguments are weak and don’t stack up. In other words they’re the hiding detail and don’t want you to look under the hood or at the fine fine print.
The person who wants to cancel you is either lying or their proposal is so preposterous they’re incapable of espousing, articulating and selling their idea.
It really is that simple.